In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favreâs alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, weâve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.

âLike all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,â Krulewitz said. âWe couldnât confirm it. Itâs obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.â
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report âhad nothing to do withâ FOX, which originally reported the story.

Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.

Back to the crux of the story, weâre having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Ramsâ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldnât confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought âa lot of sensitivityâ to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?

In Favreâs case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.

Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.

But ESPN didnât. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.

Posted by Mike Florio on October 21, 2008, 7:54 p.m.
In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favreâs alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, weâve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.
âLike all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,â Krulewitz said. âWe couldnât confirm it. Itâs obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.â
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report âhad nothing to do withâ FOX, which originally reported the story.
âWe consistently give credit to other news organizations,â Krulewitz said.
Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.
Back to the crux of the story, weâre having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Ramsâ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldnât confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought âa lot of sensitivityâ to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?
In Favreâs case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.
Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.
But ESPN didnât. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.

Posted by Mike Florio on October 21, 2008, 7:54 p.m.
In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favreâs alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, weâve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.
âLike all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,â Krulewitz said. âWe couldnât confirm it. Itâs obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.â
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report âhad nothing to do withâ FOX, which originally reported the story.
âWe consistently give credit to other news organizations,â Krulewitz said.
Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.
Back to the crux of the story, weâre having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Ramsâ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldnât confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought âa lot of sensitivityâ to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?
In Favreâs case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.
Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.
But ESPN didnât. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.

Are you kidding me? ESPN is by far the most dominant force on TV with males of all demo's. Between the x games and the sports they will only grow.

Only people in NE hate ESPN, but you still tune in. I will bet you 1 trillion bucks ESPN never "goes out of business".

Click to expand...

One hand I agree re: ESPN's domination; I have the utmost respect for them as a business despite how much I despise them for their content, policies, and lack of responsibility in shaping public opinion.

On the other side, many people despise ESPN, if for no other reason that those fans pay far more attention to critical remarks of their favorite teams than they do when analysts say something favorable. For example, while all the Pats fans last year were hating ESPN for the way they handled spygate, fans of other teams were convinced ESPN loved the Pats for their stories about the team being undefeated and haing a chance to go undefeated. Fans in every area are convinced ESPN is biased against their favorite team, and hate them based on that belief.

Regarding the "never" comment, I'm not so sure. On one hand ESPN's management has been adept enough to embrace technology and now owns not only sports television's, but also sport internet's most popular location. On the other hand, I can think of other companies that were 'never' going to not be dominant, or at least significant, such as GM, Ford, Sears, US Steel, or the railroad industry; or to be more recent and market specific, look at the IT sector and companies like Novell, Hayes, 3Com and AOL. Would you have thought a year ago Lehman Brothers would be bankrupt? To bet "a trillion dollars" that espn would 'never go out of business' is rather short-sighted.

Don't bother...Jets Lifer is a NOW PROVEN undercover Rats troll...worthless...so worthless you shouldn't even bother to put him on ignore...in fact it's sort of fun in a perverse way, watching him twist like a little rat at the end of a green rope.It takes a real miscreant with overwhelming bitter hatred to assume an enemy team's colors and then try to co-opt an entire web site with hatred and bile.No life, no clue,no hope.

espn will decline, and someone else will replace them....maybe google is into starting a sports channel?

Click to expand...

Doubtful that ESPN will go away seeing that its under the ABC/Disney umbrella. As far as the whole Lord Favrequad current story... you expect ESPN who is fixated on protecting His Lordliness will suddenly run a story that will undoubtably be throwing mud at him? Pleez... that's like expecting those rats not to run a negative story on the Pats.

If it was a story about BB, confirmed or uncomfirmed, it would be on there 24/7, with all of their "analysts" and "experts" lamenting him as a cheater and liar. To say that channel sucks is a vast understatement. I ONLY watch live events on that rotten network, usually with the sound off. Kornheiser's repeated insertion of Brady's name and comparing him to Cassel was unnecessary and unhelpful to understanding that game. He's like the class clown the just NEEDS attention at all costs. He never shut up.

If it was a story about BB, confirmed or uncomfirmed, it would be on there 24/7, with all of their "analysts" and "experts" lamenting him as a cheater and liar. To say that channel sucks is a vast understatement. I ONLY watch live events on that rotten network, usually with the sound off. Kornheiser's repeated insertion of Brady's name and comparing him to Cassel was unnecessary and unhelpful to understanding that game. He's like the class clown the just NEEDS attention at all costs. He never shut up.

Click to expand...

Well said....

Its an embarrassment that they call themselves sports journalists.

I hope that no Patriots fan watches this horrid network unless they have to...like for MNF....

Isn't this similar to the Marvin Harrison shooting story? Many people who I've talked to over the past few months hadn't even heard the story. Allegations are just that: the Pats were 'alleged' to have taped the Rams walkthrough (not true); Vick was 'alleged' to have participated in a dog fighting ring (true); Favre was 'alleged' to have sat down with Lions coaches (true? not true? who knows); the Duke lacrosse team was 'alleged' to have raped a stripper at one of their parties (not true); Harrison is 'alleged' to have some involvement in a shooting that took place at his car wash and was done with his gun (everything I've read points to him or someone closely related to him pulling the trigger).

What's the difference in the stories? Well, the Patriots were a hated team, already embroiled in Spygate. The Duke lacrosse team was regarded as a bunch of troublemakers--even worse: rich, preppy, arrogant troublemakers. Vick had fallen out of ESPN's limelight after they trumped him up for years, and had run-ins with the law previous to the dog fighting story. Then you have Favre and Harrison: one is the golden boy of all golden boys, the other is a perfect citizen on a team and in an organization of saints. See the difference?

I believe they should report as much as they can to be fair to the accusation. But this is a much more serious situation then Walsh's was. Even if Favre did what hes accused of, there is nothing illegal and it is within the rules. Spygate was an entire franchise cheating and costing teams victories and should therefore be given much more exposure.

No chit. As soon as word of this came out, people here were saying "Oh I'm sure that happens all the time, Brett wasn't doing anything wrong." Bull****. You know and I know and everybody in the western world knows that if it was a former Patriot who did this, or a former player for the Jets, Phins or Bills had called the Pats with such info, BSPN would be interrupting regular programming to report it.